Tony Tan ’ s political career <ul><li>11 years as a DPM (1995-2005) </li></ul><ul><li>22 years as a Cabinet Minister (1980-91; 1995-05): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Education Minister (1980 – 81 & 1985 – 91); </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Finance Minister (1983 – 85), Trade and Industry Minister (1981 – 86); </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Defence Minister (1995-03); </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Minister for Security and Defence (2001-2005) . </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2 decades as a Minister-in-charge for NUS and NTU </li></ul><ul><li>27 years as a MP for Sembawang (1979-2005) </li></ul>
… the bread & butter issues <ul><li>Tony Tan supported CPF employer rate cut from 25% to 10%. (1986) </li></ul><ul><li>He mandated another 3% CPF employer cut with the justification that Singapore’s labour were higher than US and Australia. (2003) </li></ul>
file:///D:/Evidence/GE2016/TT/An%20alternative%20to%20penalising%20labour.htm We have priced our labour out of the market It's for our survival and we should have done it (price cut) much earlier.
http://www.ubs.com/1/ShowMedia/media_overview/media_emea/mediareleases?contentId=34588&name=PL_2003_e_m.pdf UBS survey contradicted Tony Tan’s “concern”, showing Singapore’s wages below New York, L.A. and Sydney. (2003)
Our workers are penalized at EVERY recession BUT CPF rate was NEVER restored to the initial rate. 1986: S&L Crisis, employer rate was cut from 25% to 10%. 1998: Asia Financial Crisis, employer ’ s rate was cut from 20% to 10%. 2003: SARS Epidemic, employer ’ s rate was cut from 16% to 13%. 2007: Subprime crisis, the employer ’ s rate was only restored to 14.5%. file:///D:/Evidence/GE2016/TT/An%20alternative%20to%20penalising%20labour.htm The HARD TRUTHs for Singaporeans Period of reduced employer CPF is longer than restored SHRINKING retirement fund
Minimum CPF Ceiling is increasing 1) In 8 years’ time , a a $51K increase in min. ceiling (63.75% ) 2) Adjustment for inflation is higher than actual inflation rate. 2) Min Sum growing more than inflation rate. http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/CPF/my-Cpf/reach-55/Reach55-2.htm 55th birthday on or after Minimum Sum (in 2003 dollars) Minimum Sum (after adjustment for inflation) Difference from the previous year % change 1 July 2003 $80,000 $80,000 1 July 2004 $84,000 $84,500 $4, 500 5.63% 1 July 2005 $88,000 $90,000 $5, 500 6.5% 1 July 2006 $92,000 $94,600 $4, 600 5.11% 1 July 2007 $96,000 $99,600 $5,000 5.29% 1 July 2008 $100,000 $106,000 $6, 400 6.43% 1 July 2009 $104,000 $117,000 $11, 000 10.38% 1 July 2010 $108,000 $123,000 $6, 000 5.1% 1 July 2011 $112,000 $131,000 $8, 000 6.5% 1 July 2012 $116,000 } To be - 1 July 2013 $120,000 } announced -
Minimum CPF Ceiling is increasing LESS cash withdrawal + SHRINKING retirement fund Less withdrawal cash after the Min. Sum has been set
CPF is locked for 30 – 40 years and subjected to Minimum Ceiling withdrawal and retirement age. 2.5% CPF interest yield is LOWER than inflation rate and LT bond yields CPF pays 2.5% interest rate Inflation rate is a glaring 4-6%!!! SHRINKING real money + LESS cash withdrawal + SHRINKING retirement fund
Employer CPF cut at 50 years old But in Singapore, growing old is a “sin” as workers reaching 50 years of age will be imposed CPF cuts, at a time when retirement fund is needed most. Like it or not, we will all grow old one day. DOUBLE SHRINKING of retirement fund + SHRINKING real money + LESS cash withdrawal + SHRINKING retirement fund
EVER shrinking retirement pot CPF….. a sword that cuts Singaporeans deep…... The HARD TRUTHs for Singaporeans Period of reduced employer CPF is longer than restored Minimum CPF Ceiling is increasing 2.5% CPF interest yield is LOWER than inflation rate and LT bond yields More Employer CPF cut at 50 years old
The HARD TRUTHs for Singaporeans S enior citizens, you and me, are paying for our ministers’ life-long pensions.
http://furrybrowndog.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/dr-tony-tan-was-no-independent-minded-person-on-the-graduate-mothers-scheme/ I am an independent man. I opposed Graduate Mothers ’ Scheme for you! . Straits Times, 17th June 2011 the FACT is Tony Tan opposed Graduate Mother Scheme NOT because it was discriminatory but because of its unpopularity that cost PAP a loss of 12.8% vote in the 1984 election. He did not believe that the scheme was unfair. (1984)
http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/08/13/prc-student-with-dual-citizenship-awarded-presidents-scholarship-by-pap/ Foreigners precede Singaporeans at our expense! Dual citizenships not allowed for Singaporeans but possible for foreigners…
<ul><li>Tony instrumented the education hub, opening the floodgate for foreign students. (1998) </li></ul><ul><li>And refused increasing the intake from local institutions to boost graduates, fearing local students would lower tertiary standards. (1999) </li></ul>http://furrybrownblog.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/are-precious-local-talents-being-shut-out-from-nus-and-ntu/ <ul><li>He emphasized the importance of foreign students whether as an Education Minister or as a DPM. (1987-2005) </li></ul>Singaporeans First! Jul 19, 2011 http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/tony-tan-favour-singaporeans- first-education-policy-060406055.html
Singaporeans are to defend themselves from the competition from foreigners, for jobs as well as university places…... (1998) http://furrybrownblog.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/protecting-local-grads-will-not-solve-race-for-jobs/ “ There is no way in which you are going to be able to protect either Singaporeans or Singapore because we are a small country.” (1998)
% of tuition grant subsidy for academic year 2011/2012 (NUS) https://share.nus.edu.sg/registrar/info/ug/UGTuitionCurrent.pdf Are we investing proportionately in Singaporeans? Why use taxpayer’s money to subsidize FT at all? 20% of university students are foreigners How many PRs are there? Schools Singaporeans PR FT Arts Soc Sc 73% 68% 61% Business 71% 65% 58% Computing 79% 74% 68% Architecture 77% 73% 66% Engineering 79% 74% 68% Law 67% 62% 54% Medicine 81% 77% 72%
Singaporeans are made to 1) scholarships, expenses and grants for foreign students in Singapore where unknown no. of them left Singapore without serving their bonds; 2) for our very own resources and education opportunities on foreign students instead of our local students; 3) for higher costs of higher tertiary education abroad when local students are squeezed out of our local universities. PAY investing
We must give every Singaporean and their families every opportunity and assistance to advance in their careers, in their jobs. I believe it is the duty of the government or groups in society to try and make this possible . Jul 23, 2011 On one hand…. On the other hand…. <ul><li>Tony Tan said NO to preferential treatment for local citizens for jobs and education in 1998 and in 2011 respectively. </li></ul><ul><li>(news conference, 23 Jun 2011) </li></ul>Sounds contradictory?
http://singaporeimperialism.blogspot.com/2006/04/temasek-counts-cost-of-thailands-shin.html http://www.asiaone.com/News/The+Straits+Times/Story/A1Story20071211-40492.html We take a long view. This is not an investment (for) which we have any fixed time frame. Of course, we'll review it from time to time. Our intention is to remain responsible, supportive investors... hopefully for the long-term . (2007) Tony Tan was the deputy chairman of GIC. (2005-2011)
Government of Singapore Investment Corporation’s annual report Portfolio Investment Report for 2010/2011 Page 10: Translated into Singapore Dollar terms, our assets have grown by about 2.3% per year http://www.gic.com.sg/newsroom/reports/2010-2011
Question: How much do we spend to upkeep GIC and Temasek Holdings for such meagre Annual Returns? http://singaporeimperialism.blogspot.com/2006/04/temasek-counts-cost-of-thailands-shin.html http://www.asiaone.com/News/The+Straits+Times/Story/A1Story20071211-40492.html FACT 1: We spent S$8 billion a year to upkeep Temasek Holdings alone. FACT 2: GIC and TH are funded by OUR CPF funds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_public_debt #9 in Global Public Debt
<ul><li>TH’s Purchase of Shin Corp and shares price plunge 23% the following month after the deal was struck. (2006) </li></ul>http://singaporeimperialism.blogspot.com/2006/04/temasek-counts-cost-of-thailands-shin.html <ul><li>( GIC) Tony Tan made an ill-informed decision by investing $14 billion in Swiss Bank UBS but turned out this was not enough to cover UBS’ losses. Further fund raising was required. UBS share price plunged. ( 2007—Tony Tan was at the helm ) </li></ul>http://www.asiaone.com/News/The+Straits+Times/Story/A1Story20071211-40492.html <ul><li>(TH) Sale of 3 Singapore Power Plants. (2008) </li></ul>To cover for TH ’ s losses? <ul><li>(TH) $5.9 billion investment in Merrill Lynch alone resulted in a loss of more than $2 billion. (2008) </li></ul><ul><li>(TH & GIC) $20 billion loss in Western banks. (2007 & 2008—Tony Tan was there!) </li></ul><ul><li>(TH) Incurred a whopping $8 billion in administrative costs for a 350-staffed company, 5.7% of total assets. (2008/09) </li></ul>Compare with Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway incurring the same amt of admin costs but comprising of only 2.7% of total assets (297 billion). Merrill Lynch was liquidated in 2009. Investment involves calculated risks but should not be undertaken by ill-informed politicians at the helm.
<ul><li>DPM Tony Tan (1995-2005) chose silence when former President Ong Teng Cheong (between 1993 – 1998) raised questions on the details of our reserve. </li></ul><ul><li>As our DPM , he failed to uphold the accountability for the chairmen and directors of both GIC and Temasek. </li></ul><ul><li>(1987) As a Cabinet Minister, he remained silence on PAP’s arrest of “Marxist conspirators”. </li></ul>
<ul><li>Our real CPF money is falling against the inflation rate, and Singaporeans CANNOT afford to retire! </li></ul><ul><li>Exhorbitant Ministers’ pay </li></ul><ul><li>Where is the long-term vision of grooming our own SMEs and local talents for sustainability?? </li></ul>For anybody to question the motivation and intention of the Government in making this salary revision will be to my mind quite absurd. <ul><li>Employer CPF rate was not restored to pre-1986 rate after 15% was taken off. </li></ul>
<ul><li>Tony Tan failed to tell us our cheap labour policy benefits NOT SINGAPOREANS but his GDP-reliant ruling party. </li></ul><ul><li>Tony Tan failed to account why Singapore Reserves were tapped to fund land reclamation & land acquisition when we have so many years of surpluses. (2002) file:///D:/Evidence/GE2016/President2011/TT/TapOfReserves.htm </li></ul>
<ul><li>(1997) As DPM, he sued Tang Liang How and Jeyaretnam for defamation. </li></ul><ul><li>As our Minister of Trade and Industry, he was silent about restoring CPF cuts but as a MP, remembered to advocate upward ministerial pay in 1994, 2 years after he left Cabinet. </li></ul>Till this date, he perceives no wrong doings in using libel suits to exterminate his political foes. (news conference, 23 Jun 2011 , http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v =_44DZjbh0EI )
A Chinese national hurling racist remarks at Singaporeans, taunting our much-cherished social harmony. The culture of bribery is re-ignited
An unknown no. of foreigners entered our island via student identity in disguise.
UNCONTROLLED influx of foreigners into our shores at all levels……
file:///D:/Evidence/GE2016/TT/Number-of-neighbour-disputes-hit-high.htm Community Mediation Centre asked the Indian family to cook curry only when the PRC family was not home. Singaporeans First???
file:///D:/Evidence/GE2016/TT/Number-of-neighbour-disputes-hit-high.htm A Philipino insulting NS men in her support for MP Penny Low, from Malaysia, caught preoccupied with mobile phone during the singing of National Anthem. MP Penny Low, from Malaysia, a foreign talent engaged in her mobile phone in the midst of our National Anthem. On a day for unifying, she chose to divide herself from Singapore.
Can we pin our hopes on Tony? <ul><li>Was also… </li></ul><ul><li>General Manager of OCBC (1969-1979) </li></ul><ul><li>Chairman & Chief Executive Officer of OCBC (1992-1995) </li></ul>Tony Tan is the nephew of Tan Chin Tuan , founder of OCBC and relative of Lee Kuan Yew.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1143950/1/.html Tony Tan’s son Dr Patrick Tan’s ‘A’ level results has satisfied the minimum requirements of the President’s Scholarship, but were not amongst the best in his cohorts. His President’s Scholarship allowed him to pursue a pre-medical degree in US followed by a postgraduate medical degree in US Dr Patrick Tan was not recalled immediately to serve NS after his first degree. http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/tony-tan-dismisses-false-rumours-son-060524402.html
Veteran. Sat 30 Jul 2011 21:22 SGT Report Abuse http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/tony-tan-dismisses-false-rumours-son-060524402.html <ul><li>Dr Wong Tien Yin & Dr Chia Shi Lu (former President's scholars) who studied medicine in NUS served NS as M.O.s after their bachelors degree. </li></ul><ul><li>Dr Patrick Tan DID receive special treatment to study medicine in the US (unprecedented then) with a President's scholarship (paid by Singaporeans) ...and did not have to undergo military training in MOCC!?? </li></ul>Was preferential treatment given to Patrick Tan, who had 12 years of deferrment for his NS?? Tony Tan’s son
Do you want to pay Tony Tan S$4.3 million p.a. (exclusive of 8 months’ bonus) …… . S$358 000 per month …… S$11 944 per day …… S$497 per hour ……
while Singaporeans get no min. wage … . while median income for Singaporeans is S$2710 per month (2010) http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1096348/1/.html
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1145067/1/.html The lazy option will be the further cutting our CPF rates and wages. The global economy is uncertain…. BUT what can Tony Tan do??!! And attract even cheaper foreign labour to maintain GDP. I have background in these areas, and the knowledge of the financial market, and the global economy…….. ( 5 Aug 2011) With such knowledge and experience, Tony Tan led GIC to the investment of $14 billion in Swiss Bank which was not even enough to cover UBS’ losses. And then to tell us:“It’s inevitable. “
How could I remain a spectator while Singapore faces such complex challenges?